Short answer. No. The revocation made in the second will takes effect even though the second will became inoperative because its heirs renounced. The revocation and the new dispositions are treated separately: the first will stays revoked, and the property the failed gifts would have covered passes as if there were no will as to it.
What the law says
A revocation made in a subsequent will shall take effect, even if the new will should become inoperative by reason of the incapacity of the heirs, devisees or legatees designated therein, or by their renunciation.
Civil Code, Article 832 — Revocation Stands Even If the Later Will Fails. Read the full provision →
The revocation survives the failed gifts
Article 832 keeps two things apart that people naturally run together: a revocation made in a subsequent will shall take effect, even if the new will should become inoperative by reason of the incapacity of the heirs, devisees or legatees designated therein, or by their renunciation. When your father's second will revoked the first, that revocation did its work at once. The later collapse of the second will's own gifts, because the heirs it named renounced, does not reach back and cancel the revocation. The first will does not spring back to life simply because the second one's beneficiaries walked away.
Why revocation and disposition are separate
A will can do two distinct things: dispose of property, and revoke an earlier will. The article treats the revocation as an independent, completed act, not as something conditioned on the new dispositions succeeding. The testator's decision to cancel the first will was expressed and took effect; the reasons the new gifts later failed, the beneficiaries' incapacity or their renunciation, concern only those gifts. Reading the revocation as automatically undone whenever the new heirs decline would let the beneficiaries' choices, not the testator's, decide which will governs. The law does not allow that.
What happens to the property
So the estate is left with a revoked first will and a second will whose dispositions have fallen through. The property those failed gifts would have carried does not return to the first will's scheme. Unless there is some valid provision to catch it, a substitution the testator built in, or an accretion among co-heirs where the conditions for it exist, it passes by intestate succession, to the heirs the law appoints when there is no effective testamentary disposition covering it. The renunciation empties the second will's gifts without reinstating the first.
How the first will could return
If your father actually wanted the first will to govern again, renunciation by the second will's heirs was never going to achieve it. A revoked will comes back only by a positive act reviving it, re-executing it or bringing it back through a later will or codicil, not by the mere failure of whatever replaced it. So the question to ask is whether he ever took such a step. Absent one, the estate is settled on the footing that the first will is gone and the second will's failed portions go by intestacy.